Category Archives: Around the globe

Post navigation

Here’s some elementary logic, based on what’s being said on American talk radio:
All Muslims see themselves as part of a jihad against non-Muslims
Barack Hussein Obama plans to slip Al Qaeda a key to the White House backdoor on the afternoon of January 20, 2009.
Obama should be able to sit back and expect 99% of the Muslim-American vote.

But the talk-show freaks, and maybe Obama himself, would be surprised by a growing movement: Muslims Against Barack.

One devoted Muslim, my Pakistani-American mother, trashed the Great Brown Hope the other day, responding to Obama’s threats to hammer militants in the Pakistani northwest frontier more aggressively than Pakistanis are willing to.

“Obama just wants to march into the northern areas and start shooting,” she says. “Doesn’t he know that the extremists will just go south, into Islamabad and Lahore and everywhere else? Doesn’t he know they will eventually go into India? Does he really think he can stop the extremists in the northern area without angering everybody and destroying our whole country?”

It’s a valid point, and it brings up a question: Why does a kind-hearted Pakistani-American grandmother show more foreign-policy acumen than an Ivy League-trained University of Chicago professor? One obvious reason is that, although Mama and Obama both love America, Mom cares deeply about Pakistan and Obama cares deeply about shutting up the hawks who mock him.

Mama’s comments about Obama came just moments after she screened for me a DVD of “In the Name of God.” That provocative 2007 Pakistani film electrified Pakistan with its depiction of a moderate Pakistani family wrenched by fundamentalist forces. To Pakistanis already struggling with the religious civil war depicted in the film, Obama sends them into fits of rage by his threats to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty in spectacular fashion (whereas the Bush administration is set on violating it more quietly and semi-secretly).

Obama is a decent man – this “secret Muzzie” is in fact the most genuinely Christian presidential candidate of the past generation, in the way that he seems to be fueled by Christian character traits such as grace, forgiveness and redemption. Yet he is also a weak man – a new breed of “chicken hawk.” He counters the charges of weakness by morphing from Obama to “Oh, Bomb ‘em.”

The unintended consequences of power matter very little to the hammer that is trying to prove its power, but those consequences matter very much to the thumb that happen to be in its way.

Since 9/11, Pakistan’s army may not have time decimated sparse northwestern villages as harshly as the U.S. would like. But Pakistanis realize the collateral damage done by the Israeli government in its efforts to root out terrorists. It creates a Hydra effect – and before that effect reaches America, it reaches cities such as Islamabad and Lahore. So Pakistanis are hardly getting out of the way of terrorists in order to allow terrorists to reach America: Pakistanis know they themselves are directly in the path of such anarchists, and they are debating how to tame the threat with minimal unintended consequences. Obama is not helping much. Small wonder that he skipped Pakistan on his recent global victory tour.

There is an increasing possibility and even likelihood of a major strike against Iran–which would loose, in the words of Yeats, “mere anarchy” on the world. Most great wars are not simply the failure of diplomacy–though they certainly are that. Most wars are great blunders and seldom serve the ambitions of the warring parties.

Iran looks like it has badly miscalculated its own interests in going nuclear. They seem willfully ignorant of what happened to Saddam Hussein. Whatever you think of the Iraq war, Saddam actively pretended to have biochemical weapons and wanted his regional enemies in to worry about him obtaining nuclear weapons. He played hide and seek with the UN inspectors because, like a young street thug, he wanted the other guys to think he was packing more heat than he had. He could have stopped the invasion by throwing open the doors, but he calculated that we wouldn’t pull the trigger. A mistake with consequences for all of us.

Ahmadinejad seems to be reading Saddam Hussein’s insane playbook. He brags about the centrifuges. He photoshops pictures of missile tests, adds missiles and changes the dates. He is like a puffer fish swelling up the appearance of his power for status. He does not believe we will attack him or that we will allow Israel to attack him in order to knock out his nuclear arms program. And yes, few experts believe that he is acquiring nuclear power, building reactors and refining plutonium to heat the houses of Teheran. He sees that nuclear power gives a certain kind of protection. He remembers that President Bush said that North Korea’s acquiring of nuclear weapons was unacceptable, but that after their first test, instead of punishing them, we reached out to them and renewed negotiations. This lesson is not lost on Ahmadinejad.

It may be a tragically wrong lesson however. He and the Mullahs may believe we engage in empty threats and don’t have either the military ability or the political will to strike them. They do not accurately factor Israel into this dangerous equation.

Israelis understand that they are in the middle of a fight much larger than their own. There is a clash of civilizations, religions and ethnicities, but the Jewish-Muslim struggle is over regarded. The larger struggle is Arab (mostly Sunni) versus Persian (mostly Shiite). Israel has some common cause with their traditional Arab adversaries. They both want to stop Iranian hegemonic ambition. Israelis also understand that Iran is not a mad state. Iran has been, by American and Israeli standards, a bad actor, a problem and an exporter of violence and death. But Iran has not been an irrational player on the chessboard of the region. They have not in fits of pique or passion sacrificed major pieces for no reason. They have aided others, used others, financed and armed others. They have been cunning and not crazy.

There is no evidence that Iran would launch an attack against Israel. They know that this would inevitably lead to Israel using nuclear weapons against Iranian targets–both military and civilian. There is no evidence that, save for a very few truly crazy, there is a great hunger for Armageddon and the rising of the Hidden Imam. I do not think that Iran presents a clear and present danger greater than the already nuclear armed and nearly failed state of Pakistan. I am far more concerned with loose nukes from Pakistan or the former Soviet Union being bought and used by terrorists–probably Al Qaeda (Sunni) than the Nation of Iran.

But then I do not live in Israel, and the price for being wrong is high beyond calculation. In the Middle East there is a tradition of trash talking, of making threats and a certain kind of braggadocio. Iran’s rhetoric certainly fits into this pattern. However, Israel and the entire Jewish World do not have the luxury of assuming that Iran is only engaging in trash talk. One of the tragic lessons of the 20th Century is that when someone says that they mean to destroy you, eliminate you, annihilate you, they might be blustering, but you cannot assume so. Hitler may have seemed like a clown in 1929 or even 1933, the threats and plans enumerated in Mein Kampf may have seemed far-fetched, but they came horrifyingly true.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not have real power today, and Iran may have been a rational player up till now, but Israel cannot take that chance.

Thus here we find ourselves today–Iran looking for power and hegemony in the Middle East and acting puffed up and proud. Israel knowing that it cannot meaningfully survive a nuclear attack and has only two choices. One to make sure that the price of its destruction is the complete destruction of its attacker. The other is to pre-empt and prevent Iran from getting the weapons that could put Israel’s existence in peril. This is not a happy choice for Israel, for Iran or for the world.

The world is pretty passive and the Europeans, as per their tradition, are stalemated and unlikely to do anything constructive. It is not too late to avoid a ruinous lose-lose war, but Iran will have to back away from the brink. They can. Israel cannot–both politically and for its very survival. Time is not on the side of peace.

Pakistani President Musharraf faces impeachment at the hands of his political rivals, and it again reminds us of the complexities and vexing inconsistencies involved in “spreading democracy” in the Mideast and South Asia.

We have preached democracy, but we have justifiably formed pragmatic alliances with strongmen such as Musharraf in the war on terror. The problem arises when we show our frustration with his democratically elected opposition — at this point, we reveal ourselves to be less interested in democracy than in getting our own way. At that point, we lose all moral authority in those lands, as countless surveys have revealed.

Pakistanis aren’t pro-terrorism; they in fact face a far greater threat in their everyday lives than Americans do. But they are not convinced that the American military solution is the answer, either. The result is that American leaders and media now posture about how this “stalwart ally” is in fact an American enemy.

It worries me greatly, as someone with roots there. I do see a crisis coming.

For years the Arab World has been slandering Israel by accusing it of being an apartheid state–and thus linking it with the formerly morally outcast South Africa. This is a fundamental, if intellectually dishonest, type of argument: Take a known and agreed upon outlaw and apply the same label or characterization to another. Voila, they must be equally morally reprehensible. For most of the time the non-Arab world was not fooled by this technique. However, one small corner of the non-Arab world, in the person of Jimmy Carter, apparently bought it and entitled his latest book about the Mid East Peace not Apartheid.

Carter sadly is not alone in using this sloppy and inaccurate term. If you Google “Israel and Apartheid,” you find 361,000 hits. This changes how people think and how they act. It helps to explain shifts in world opinion and policy and how some liberal Christian denominations have tried to disinvest in Israel, as they did with South Africa. Clearly, the acceptance of apartheid as a fitting label for Israel is gaining currency. It is more a libel than an accurate label. This is why it must be addressed.

Of course no one is going to argue that the situation for Palestinians in either Gaza or the West Bank is good. There are walls, fences and checkpoints. Life for them is difficult and dangerous. But from where does the danger come? Why are there walls? Does anyone seriously believe that Israel wants to spend its money building walls and controlling checkpoints? Does anyone believe that these separations, both in the territories and within agreed upon Israeli borders, are for anything other than safety, or at least the illusion of safety?

Fencing out danger, whether perceived or real, may be futile, but it is not apartheid. Checkpoints may be needed or abused, this can be debated, but it is hardly apartheid. The policy of overwhelming military response to Palestinian terror may be wrong–strategically or morally. This can be and is debated in Israel, but to label it as apartheid is to misunderstand, perhaps willfully, the nature of both old South Africa and modern Israel.

Words like apartheid and holocaust are powerful and their misuse debases them and diminishes past horrors. South African apartheid was based on the belief that white people were biologically superior to blacks. There was a racial rationale for these monstrous policies. They believed that the races should be kept separate in work, in play, in homes, neighborhoods and marriage.

The original Zionist vision was building a land together, and the presence of Arabs–Christian, Muslim and Druze–was a given. Certainly they did not advocate intermarriage, but there was no ideology of racial superiority. Of course, and tragically, their idealistic vision became occluded by violence and rejection from Faisal to the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem in the 20s and 30s. The Arab invasion, initiated at the moment of the granting of Israeli statehood, continued this tragic deterioration of hope, peace and mutual regard.

From the beginning, Israel offered both citizenship and positions of power to Arabs. Every Knesset (Israeli Parliament) has had Arab members. There have been a total of 59 Arabs members, many of them serving multiple terms. In fact the second longest serving member of the Knesset was an Arab–serving 12 terms and over 41 years. There are currently 12 Arab members of the Knesset, including two who have been Deputy Speaker and one who is a Minister with Portfolio. Though not subject to the draft, Arabs may and have served with distinction in the Israeli army.

So, if Israel is to be judged as an apartheid state, what are the various Arab nations? Which of them grants citizenship to Jews? Which has Jews in elected office? Which grants any freedom of religion to Jews–or in many cases even Christians? I suppose you can’t call Saudi Arabia an apartheid state because there are no Jews to separate. The once flourishing Jewish communities of Baghdad and Damascus are all but gone–as are the once Jewish populations of Cairo and Alexandria.

When critics raise the legitimate issue of the Palestinians who fled is Israel at its birth, they forget the forced Jewish Diaspora from Arab lands. Interestingly, the Jews who fled Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Yemen were absorbed into Israel. Tragically the Palestinians who fled Israel for Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon were not assimilated but kept in camps and in squalor. Their bitterness is certainly understandable, but their violence gets in the way of their future. When reparations discussions take place–or more accurately, when the Palestinians make claims–they do not even acknowledge the Jewish land and wealth that was confiscated or abandoned since 1948.

The current situation is volatile and dangerous for all. Each side denies the claims and the pain of the other. This is understandable between the combatants. But out here, in America and Europe, we should strive to understand not just the easy stories of pain and tragedy but the political and moral complexities. Just today I read a column by a liberal columnist whom I usually enjoy, and he had this astonishingly over-simplified sentence: “Jerusalem’s hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents, whose ancestors have lived there since Biblical times, are not considered Israeli citizens, and cannot vote.”

This is in the category of something that is 100% half true. There are residents of East Jerusalem who cannot vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens. They do vote in Palestinian elections. There are also Arab residents who are citizens who can and do vote in Israeli elections.

The implication of the columnist’s sentence would be like saying that in Los Angeles hundreds of thousands of Hispanics cannot vote. This is true. The non-citizens cannot vote. However hundred of thousands of Hispanics do vote and some hold office like say the Mayor. Are Hispanics, citizens and non-citizens alike, treated equally? No. There is prejudice and fear. Is there separation in Los Angeles by race and class? You bet. Do upper class and upper middleclass people try to hide behind walls and gates? Yes. Is it apartheid? No.

We do not have full and equal justice and neither does Israel. Justice and an end of divisions are our goals, as they are Israel’s. A ceasefire is a good start. A ceasefire on careless rhetoric might also help.

On Easter Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI baptized Magdi Allam, an Italian newspaper editor and a former Muslim, into the Christian faith. And ever since, various Muslim, secular, and even Christians have denounced this high-profile conversion as reckless and needlessly provocative. Allam, they argue, should have received the sacraments quietly, without all the attention and papal fanfare that could harm interfaith dialog and offend Muslim sensibilities.

But in terms of shock value and provocation, Allams conversion has nothing on Bl. Anthony Neyrots.

Neyrot, who celebrates his feast day today, was a Dominican brother living in Sicily in the Fifteenth Century. While sailing to Naples, Moorish pirates captured his ship, then sold him into slavery in Tunis. There, Neyrot would win back his earthly freedom by rejecting Christianity in favor of Islam. He was adopted into the Tunisian kings family and took a wife, leaving his vocation, his order, and his faith behind.

It’s quite possible Anthony would have died an apostate were it not for the intervention of his former Dominican prior, who had only recently passed away St. Antoninus. Antoninus appeared to Anthony in a dream, the message of which was so profound that it spurred Anthonys repentance. Neyrot sought out a priest, confessed his sins, sent his wife back to her family, and was readmitted to his order.

But his reversion didnt end there. Anthony wanted his return to Christ to be as public as possible. On Palm Sunday of 1460, Anthony appeared at a procession before the Tunisian king, wearing his white Dominican habit for all to see. He publicly denounced his conversion to Islam and proclaimed his restored devotion to Christ.

American politicians believe that democracy can only be achieved through free elections and a desire for self-determination. I have a different take. I say give them access to McDonalds, Wal-Mart and cell phones and you don’t even need their hearts and minds — they will fight for their right to buy more crap they don’t need.

Last week, word that cell phones were going to be allowed in Cuba seemed a huge step toward freeing the people through the acquisition of stuff, until one realized that even the cheapest cell phone payment plan is beyond the means of most people. Still I image the Cuban relatives outside of Cuba would have no problem paying the cell bills to keep in contact with loved ones still on the island.

But I think I may have found the real catalyst for change in a post-Fidel Cuba: appliances.

Perusing through the Cayman Net News,a strange Caribbean newspaper in which the rules of punctuation seemed to be quite relaxed, I stumbled on a seemingly innocuous AFP story about Cubans buying (or at least, eyeing) rice cookers. (The Caymans are Cuba-adjacent,). Because of the strangeness of this paper’s web site, I can’t link to the story. But here’s the line that I think says it all:

Cubans lined up outside stores Tuesday to gawk at, and enjoy their new right to buy, appliances such as pressure cookers, DVDs and electric bikes. Their sale had been banned by the government since 2003 amid severe power shortages.

My favorite contestant is the old guy in this audition tape from Mazar-e-Sharif:

It’s like “American Idol,” but scours for contestants in Kabul, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar, etc. There’s even an Afghan Ryan Seacrest (who’s actually a medical student) and a woman on the judging panel a la Paula Abdul. It’s in its third season, and this year a woman from Kandahar placed third, the highest ever for a woman, drawing lots of fans and pissing off conservative clerics. And I can’t help but notice that, sans beards, there are some hot guys in Afghanistan…

Might he say a word or two about the pleased comments about his potential presidency that were found on a laptop of the Colombian terror group FARC? You know, the nuggets buried at the bottom of the AP’s story on the contents of the seized laptop:

“Writing two days before his death, (FARC commander Raul) Reyes tells his comrades that ‘the gringos,’ working through Ecuador’s government, are interested ‘in talking to us on various issues.’

‘They say the new president of their country will be (Barack) Obama,’ he writes, saying Obama rejects both the Bush administration’s free trade agreement with Colombia and the current military aid program.”

Surely a notorious killer, kidnapper, and drug trafficker isn’t an ideal endorsement. Two days after Reyes’ death, before the laptop discovery was released, Obama released a short, general statement against the threats of war in South America, saying diplomacy through “international actors” (Danny Glover?? Sean Penn??) should be used to defuse the situation. Obama’s previously signaled his opposition to free trade with Colombia, but what about the U.S. aid agreement by which President Alvaro Uribe has been able to battle the traffickers and the FARC (which still holds three American hostages), thus making the cities there livable again? I’d love to hear Obama’s opinions in light of the Reyes mail…